|
Post by laurel on Jan 24, 2010 17:03:20 GMT -4
You know, even if there were a scenario involving a hijacked plane, isn't it kind of dumb to use a real plane in your simulation? Also, I thought it had been established that the "simulation" was something totally different which could not possibly have created real confusion about the events in question for more than a few seconds. I don't really feel like looking it up, though. Does this help? www.911myths.com/html/war_games_cover_for_9-11.html
|
|
|
Post by feelfree222 on Jan 24, 2010 17:07:12 GMT -4
You know, even if there were a scenario involving a hijacked plane, isn't it kind of dumb to use a real plane in your simulation? Also, I thought it had been established that the "simulation" was something totally different which could not possibly have created real confusion about the events in question for more than a few seconds. I don't really feel like looking it up, though. I have not say than the simulation implied crashing a real plane into a building. Cought!! United States government operations and exercises on September 11, 2001 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_government_operations_and_exercises_on_September_11,_2001 Among the exercises ... Agency planned drill for plane crash last Sept. 11 Associated Press August 22, 2002 WASHINGTON -- In what the government describes as a bizarre coincidence, one U.S. intelligence agency was planning an exercise last Sept. 11 in which an errant aircraft crashed into one of its buildings. But the cause wasn't terrorism -- it was to be a simulated accident. Officials at the Chantilly, Va.-based National Reconnaissance Office had scheduled an exercise that morning in which a small corporate jet crashed into one of the four towers at the agency's headquarters building after experiencing a mechanical failure. The agency is about four miles from the runways of Washington Dulles International Airport. Agency chiefs came up with the scenario to test employees' ability to respond to a disaster, said spokesman Art Haubold. To simulate the damage from the plane, some stairwells and exits were to be closed off, forcing employees to find other ways to evacuate the building. "It was just an incredible coincidence that this happened to involve an aircraft crashing into our facility," Haubold said. "As soon as the real world events began, we canceled the exercise." Terrorism was to play no role in the exercise, which had been planned for several months, he said. Adding to the coincidence, American Airlines Flight 77 -- the Boeing 767 that was hijacked and crashed into the Pentagon -- took off from Dulles at 8:10 a.m. on Sept. 11, 50 minutes before the exercise was to begin. It struck the Pentagon around 9:40 a.m., killing 64 aboard the plane and 125 on the ground. The National Reconnaissance Office operates many of the nation's spy satellites. It draws its personnel from the military and the CIA. After the Sept. 11 attacks, most of the 3,000 people who work at agency headquarters were sent home, save for some essential personnel, Haubold said. An announcement for an upcoming homeland security conference in Chicago first noted the exercise. In a promotion for speaker John Fulton, a CIA officer assigned as chief of NRO's strategic gaming division, the announcement says, "On the morning of September 11th 2001, Mr. Fulton and his team ... were running a pre-planned simulation to explore the emergency response issues that would be created if a plane were to strike a building. Little did they know that the scenario would come true in a dramatic way that day." The conference is being run by the National Law Enforcement and Security Institute.
|
|
|
Post by laurel on Jan 24, 2010 19:19:24 GMT -4
I notice that this article contradicts what you said earlier in the thread: Remember than on that day they have exercise implying simulation of hijacking planes. So when they observed something going wrong they were confuse if the planes were part of that simulation or not. The article clearly says that the simulation didn't involve a hijacked plane; the simulated scenario was a plane accidentally crashing into a building because of a mechanical failure.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Jan 24, 2010 19:40:45 GMT -4
I have not say than the simulation implied crashing a real plane into a building. But the report did say that, so what's your point? In order for your suggestion that ground controllers might have been confused because this simulation was supposed to be going on, you have to assume that the controlers can't tell the difference between the transponder code for a small corporate jet on one flight path and a 737 full of passengers on another. You really have no idea what these guys are actually trained to do, have you? The numbers next to the blobs on the radar screens actually mean something to the people trained to spend all day looking at those screens. Frankly, I imagine any air traffic controller would be as insulted by that suggestion as I would be if you insinuated I couldn't tell the difference between a sample of human blood and some coloured glycerol.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jan 24, 2010 20:14:09 GMT -4
You forget that part of my reply. Remember than on that day they have an exercise implying the simulation of hijacking planes.NORAD had a exercise which involved the hijacking of a small plane to Cuba. ATC was not involved in this in any way and did not know about it at the time so they had no reason to be confused about it. What did confuse the ATCC dealing with 77 was that the plane vanished from their screens and ceased radio contact. They assumed it had crashed and started search and resuce activities. No, the only confusion that happened with identifing what was occuring was with Indianapolis ATCC when they thought 77 had crashed (this was re-evaluated when controllers returning fromm a break mentioned the events unfolding in New York.) NORAD merely asked if the phone call alerting them to a hijack (from Boston ATCC about Flight 11) was an exercise or real, and when told it was real instantly switched from exercise mode to real mode. That took about 30 secs, so no confusion there. There was more confusion in both NORAD and the various ATCC's later, but that was over different things. (For example whether Flight 11 was still in the air after WTC 1 was hit, and if it was Delta Flight 1989 or UA 93 that was the fourth hijacking), but none of that was caused by any exercises.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jan 24, 2010 23:16:38 GMT -4
I have not say than the simulation implied crashing a real plane into a building. Cought!! No, I mean, "wouldn't it be silly if they couldn't tell the difference between a real plane full of real people and the simulation plane?" After all, you wouldn't want your blip used for simulation to be a blip of a plane going to San Francisco in the real world. That's exactly what I was looking for, Laurel. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jan 24, 2010 23:51:02 GMT -4
Having spoken to ATC about it, there was no way to have real and simulated blips on the same screen, either you had tyhe screen set to simulation mode, and had a computer feed, or you have it set to real mode and get direct data from the radar. All you had to do is flip a switch.
|
|
|
Post by feelfree222 on Jan 25, 2010 1:25:18 GMT -4
There was more confusion in both NORAD and the various ATCC's later, but that was over different things. (For example whether Flight 11 was still in the air after WTC 1 was hit, Interesting,what makes them to believe than Flight 11 was still in the air after WTC 1 was hit ? Is it because they received blips from Flight 11 on their screens even after WTC 1 was hit ?
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jan 25, 2010 1:38:09 GMT -4
Blind hope?
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jan 25, 2010 6:38:18 GMT -4
There was more confusion in both NORAD and the various ATCC's later, but that was over different things. (For example whether Flight 11 was still in the air after WTC 1 was hit, Interesting,what makes them to believe than Flight 11 was still in the air after WTC 1 was hit ? Is it because they received blips from Flight 11 on their screens even after WTC 1 was hit ? Not even close, by that time everyone knew planes had hit the WTC, they just didn't know which ones. The issue was caused by the FAA emergency status systems lagging behind real time events, as they do (people have to physically collect and enter the data), meaning the ATC who was keeping NORAD informed picked up the old information and passed it on thinking it was correct. It resulting in NORAD launching a pair of fighters to intercept a phantom plane. Interestingly, since they thought it was heading for DC, it resulted in them having Fighters over DC faster then they otherwise would have. Flight 11 was lost from radar shortly before it hit, though they did get a ghost reflection shortly after the crash caused by the smoke and debries of the impact. You realise that you could actually learn all of this for yourself if you just bothered reading the numerous reports and investigations into 9/11 rather than just the CT sites? Here's a really good place to start since you probably can't be bothered reading the 9/11 Commission and NIST Reports.
|
|
|
Post by Obviousman on Jan 25, 2010 7:21:38 GMT -4
You are wasting your time. Feelfree22 has got it into their mind that it was "faked" in some regard and they won't let anything change it. No matter how many facts you bring up they'll just dance about or ignore them.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jan 25, 2010 15:25:45 GMT -4
You are wasting your time. Feelfree22 has got it into their mind that it was "faked" in some regard and they won't let anything change it. No matter how many facts you bring up they'll just dance about or ignore them. While you are likely right as he is bringing up things that have been widely known about since around 2004 when the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States was released. However his working out that PFT was spewing a load of hockey over the door after being shunted in the right direction does give me hope that he is capable of learning.
|
|
|
Post by feelfree222 on Jan 25, 2010 17:13:34 GMT -4
Interesting,what makes them to believe than Flight 11 was still in the air after WTC 1 was hit ? Is it because they received blips from Flight 11 on their screens even after WTC 1 was hit ? Not even close, by that time everyone knew planes had hit the WTC, they just didn't know which ones. The issue was caused by the FAA emergency status systems lagging behind real time events, as they do (people have to physically collect and enter the data), meaning the ATC who was keeping NORAD informed picked up the old information and passed it on thinking it was correct. It resulting in NORAD launching a pair of fighters to intercept a phantom plane. Interestingly, since they thought it was heading for DC, it resulted in them having Fighters over DC faster then they otherwise would have. Flight 11 was lost from radar shortly before it hit, though they did get a ghost reflection shortly after the crash caused by the smoke and debries of the impact.What about this reported by the The Kean Commission's "There were likely false blips on screen even after 9:16. The Kean Commission's report introduced "phantom flight-11" as being reported by the FAA at 9:25 on 9/11. The FAA reported flight 11 was heading to Washington D.C. at that time when in fact it had already struck the World Trade Center. The Kean Commission's report stated they were "unable to locate the source of the mistaken FAA information."You realise that you could actually learn all of this for yourself if you just bothered reading the numerous reports and investigations into 9/11 rather than just the CT sites? Here's a really good place to start since you probably can't be bothered reading the 9/11 Commission and NIST Reports. That info about false blips Phantom Flight 11 came from a debunking site. However their poor attempt at debunking lead me to believe that they have dont read any official report too. see down the page 3- Phantom Flight 11 false blips www.911myths.com/html/false_blips.html
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jan 25, 2010 17:19:53 GMT -4
Not even close, by that time everyone knew planes had hit the WTC, they just didn't know which ones. The issue was caused by the FAA emergency status systems lagging behind real time events, as they do (people have to physically collect and enter the data), meaning the ATC who was keeping NORAD informed picked up the old information and passed it on thinking it was correct. It resulting in NORAD launching a pair of fighters to intercept a phantom plane. Interestingly, since they thought it was heading for DC, it resulted in them having Fighters over DC faster then they otherwise would have. Flight 11 was lost from radar shortly before it hit, though they did get a ghost reflection shortly after the crash caused by the smoke and debries of the impact. What about this reported by the The Kean Commission's "There were likely false blips on screen even after 9:16. The Kean Commission's report introduced "phantom flight-11" as being reported by the FAA at 9:25 on 9/11. The FAA reported flight 11 was heading to Washington D.C. at that time when in fact it had already struck the World Trade Center. The Kean Commission's report stated they were "unable to locate the source of the mistaken FAA information."You realise that you could actually learn all of this for yourself if you just bothered reading the numerous reports and investigations into 9/11 rather than just the CT sites? Here's a really good place to start since you probably can't be bothered reading the 9/11 Commission and NIST Reports. That info about false blips Phantom Flight 11 came from a debunking site. However their poor attempt at debunking lead me to believe that they have dont read any official report too. see down the page 3- Phantom Flight 11 false blips www.911myths.com/html/false_blips.htmlI know what happened because I have talked to the man that did it. His name is Colin Scroggins, he was the Military Liason in the Boston ATCC. He occasionally posts under the name "Cheap Shot" over on the JREF Forum. At the time of the Commision's report they still didn't have all the information that has come out in the past 5 1/2 years.
|
|
|
Post by feelfree222 on Jan 25, 2010 17:24:16 GMT -4
What about this reported by the The Kean Commission's "There were likely false blips on screen even after 9:16. The Kean Commission's report introduced "phantom flight-11" as being reported by the FAA at 9:25 on 9/11. The FAA reported flight 11 was heading to Washington D.C. at that time when in fact it had already struck the World Trade Center. The Kean Commission's report stated they were "unable to locate the source of the mistaken FAA information."That info about false blips Phantom Flight 11 came from a debunking site. However their poor attempt at debunking lead me to believe that they have dont read any official report too. see down the page 3- Phantom Flight 11 false blips www.911myths.com/html/false_blips.htmlI know what happened because I have talked to the man that did it. His name is Colin Scroggins, he was the Military Liason in the Boston ATCC. He occasionally posts under the name "Cheap Shot" over on the JREF Forum. At the time of the Commision's report they still didn't have all the information that has come out in the past 5 1/2 years. Ok, thanks for that precision.That clear my mind about some events which appeared suspicious without more details.
|
|